Licence to kill - life under the gun in the UShttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2006/03/01/expat0301.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/03/03/ixportal.htmlBy Jarek Garlinski(Filed: 01/03/2006) thats 3/1/06 for us Yanks

We live in the heart of American gun country. A local farmhouse I have visited near here has a gun rack that would not disgrace a decent infantry battalion's guard room.

In Houston British expatriates still speak of the drunken Scotsman coming back late one night over ten years ago in one of the smarter parts of town. When he knocked on some stranger's door at 3am, the homeowner shot and killed him believing his life to be in danger. The homeowner was within his legal rights and thus was not prosecuted.

Gun ownership is possibly the issue that most perplexes foreigners about the United States. Even many of us who live here find it hard to fathom the almost fanatical obsession shown by some gun owners and their contempt for gun control.

The gun lobby is well organized. The National Rifle Association (NRA), with no more than four million members in a nation of around 275 million, and theoretically a sporting club for gun enthusiasts, is immensely political and wields extensive influence.

A visit to the NRA web site is instructive, if one wants to understand the so-called "cultural wars" between the liberals and the conservatives in this country. The web site contains in essence three principal messages:

• The Second Amendment to the US Constitution unequivocally permits American citizens to bear arms;

• Attempts to limit gun ownership are a socialist, if not communist, assault on American freedoms;

• Citizens are safer in a country without gun control, since they can defend themselves against armed criminals.

Thus it is clear that the NRA aligns itself with the social conservatives who view with alarm what they believe to be a liberal attempt to tear America away from its traditions.

They believe in a literal reading of the American Constitution, they feel that the judiciary has become too liberal and they tend to regard the outside world, especially the United Nations Organisation, with a high degree of hostility.

Be that as it may, the NRA wants to dispel the notion that the typical gun owner is a paranoid working-class white man of the kind depicted by Tennessee Williams and Arthur Miller. However, I have to say that all the hard-line gun owners I have personally encountered in my 19 years here did in fact match the stereotype and I found them to be quite impervious to any kind of rational argument.

For instance I have been treated to a lecture on how crime has risen in England as a result of the Government's "gun confiscation" programmes by a gentleman who has never been there, and who expressed incredulity that I had no idea what he was talking about.

There are angry web sites on the Internet with headlines like "Gun Control - Hypocrisy or Stupidity?" and which talk of a "war" against gun control advocates. The argument then shifts to the rather more sophisticated political point that a well-armed citizenry is a final bulwark against military dictatorship or invasion. This is illustrated by the thought that if more Europeans had had firearms in the 1930s, the Nazis would have been stopped in their tracks.

Unfortunately, the argument underestimates Nazi ruthlessness, and it is hard to imagine an armed citizenry in, for instance, Holland, Poland or the Ukraine, repulsing the Wehrmacht, backed up as it was by the SS and the Luftwaffe. Snipers don't defeat a modern army and didn't prevent Nelson winning at Trafalgar.

Not too many politicians are prepared to stand up to the NRA though and only the other day the Congress approved by a vote of 283-144 a law limiting gun manufacturers' legal liability.

Portrayed as a measure to limit frivolous lawsuits against big business, this bill does on the face of it appear to give the gun manufacturers more legal protection than many other groups.

Indeed it was the NRA's chief lobbyist, Christopher Cox, who let the cat out of the bag saying "We are a safer country today because Congress passed this critical legislation and acted to save American icons like Remington, Ruger, Winchester and Smith & Wesson from politically motivated lawsuits."

He added: "Our men and women in uniform abroad and at home now will not have to rely on France, China or Germany to supply their firearms." In other words, it's all really about business and the American gun manufacturing industry.

Last year when the ten-year ban on the sale of assault rifles was quietly allowed to expire, you could hear the gun manufacturers licking their lips.

It is unlikely though that there will be any major changes here soon, since although many Americans do not themselves own weapons and do not subscribe to the NRA's beliefs, enough people are in some way convinced that owning guns is the "American way".

Nevertheless, it would be wrong, I believe, to dismiss out of hand the gun lobby's belief in self-defence.

To be sure, the NRA's loud support for firearms in a country whose murder rate, which, although dropping, is extremely high (16,503 murders in 2003, of which 67 per cent were committed with guns) seems somewhat out of place.

Indeed the argument that citizens are safer in a country where there are more guns rather flies in the face of these numbers. Yet the idea of meeting force with force, as in a new Florida law, does have some theoretical merit.

I for one am disturbed to read reports of elderly homeowners in England being prosecuted for defending their property and themselves against intruders or teenage vandals.

There must be a middle ground between craven political correctness and a gun in every cupboard.

Dear Mr. President: In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just NO -- but HELL NO!

Indeed the argument that citizens are safer in a country where there are more guns rather flies in the face of these numbers. Yet the idea of meeting force with force, as in a new Florida law, does have some theoretical merit.

I for one am disturbed to read reports of elderly homeowners in England being prosecuted for defending their property and themselves against intruders or teenage vandals.

There must be a middle ground between craven political correctness and a gun in every cupboard.

There are so many little gems in that statement, but this is my favorite.

They believe in a literal reading of the American Constitution. . . .

Its a f*cking legal document, not poetry. Of course you read it literally. Maybe if European schools taught something besides multi-cultural butt-licking you Eurotrash retards would know things like this. If you didn't have a history ciriculum centered around "101 naughty things white people and christians did" you'd understand that in Britain the militia - being comprised of the whole body of citizenry armed for war - dates back at least to Alfred the Great. That's right, 800 f*cking A.D. But we're the odd ones for maintaining a 1200 year tradition.

Originally Posted By happycynic:There are so many little gems in that statement, but this is my favorite.

They believe in a literal reading of the American Constitution. . . .

Its a f*cking legal document, not poetry. Of course you read it literally. Maybe if European schools taught something besides multi-cultural butt-licking you Eurotrash retards would know things like this. If you didn't have a history ciriculum centered around "101 naughty things white people and christians did" you'd understand that in Britain the militia - being comprised of the whole body of citizenry armed for war - dates back at least to Alfred the Great. That's right, 800 f*cking A.D. But we're the odd ones for maintaining a 1200 year tradition.

You said it pal.Literal reading?No shit - it's a contract.There is only one way to read it.

Originally Posted By happycynic:There are so many little gems in that statement, but this is my favorite.

They believe in a literal reading of the American Constitution. . . .

Its a f*cking legal document, not poetry. Of course you read it literally. Maybe if European schools taught something besides multi-cultural butt-licking you Eurotrash retards would know things like this. If you didn't have a history ciriculum centered around "101 naughty things white people and christians did" you'd understand that in Britain the militia - being comprised of the whole body of citizenry armed for war - dates back at least to Alfred the Great. That's right, 800 f*cking A.D. But we're the odd ones for maintaining a 1200 year tradition.

Be that as it may, the NRA wants to dispel the notion that the typical gun owner is a paranoid working-class white man of the kind depicted by Tennessee Williams and Arthur Miller. However, I have to say that all the hard-line gun owners I have personally encountered in my 19 years here did in fact match the stereotype and I found them to be quite impervious to any kind of rational argument.

Snipers don't defeat a modern army and didn't prevent Nelson winning at Trafalgar.

Kicked your limey ass out of most of Ireland didn't it? (and lightly armed guys brought you to the bargaining table in the rest.)

And the US.

And Palestine.

Quite frankly, I never trust a Brit when they talk about gun control. There's a reason they banned everybody but themselves from carrying weapons in Ireland for a long time. And it sure wasn't because they wanted to protect the citizenry from crime.

"You banned my ancestors from carrying arms, and then took their homes. Now that we've found a new home, I'll be god damned if anybody takes my arms from me again."

Goes for the rest of Europe as well.

I'll fight alongside Brits and Euros when our aims are similar, but I'll be damned if I'll listen to them about how I should do things at home. If there's one thing a BA and most of an MA in history has taught me is that they sure don't write stuff as the above for altrustic reasons.

The person who wrote that may not even be conscious of the thought, but it always happens this way:

a)We don't like how you're doing X. Do it this way.b)By the way, you don't need guns. Give them up.c)You didn't do what we said. Why not?d)Hey, our troops have guns and you don't.

Snipers don't defeat a modern army and didn't prevent Nelson winning at Trafalgar.

Kicked your limey ass out of most of Ireland didn't it? (and lightly armed guys brought you to the bargaining table in the rest.)

Actually no it didn't, bombs and a lack of political will did that....

Originally Posted By Spade:Quite frankly, I never trust a Brit when they talk about gun control. There's a reason they banned everybody but themselves from carrying weapons in Ireland for a long time. And it sure wasn't because they wanted to protect the citizenry from crime.

Care to quote me when it was illegal to own guns in Ireland? Actually all the British did was ban the import of rifles after both sides (Protestants & Catholics) started arming their volunteers.

Well actually the only time high powered rifle and handgun ownership was 'banned' in Ireland was between 1972 and 2004 in the Republic of Ireland, that's the 'Independent' part BTW. Gun ownership has always been legal in Ireland.

You can even get a CCW permit in Northern Ireland and own a machine gun for self defence with a PDW permit.

Originally Posted By vito113:Care to quote me when it was illegal to own guns in Ireland? Actually all the British did was ban the import of rifles after both sides (Protestants & Catholics) started arming their volunteers.

Ranting on about articles in overseas papers is a handy susbstiute for dealing with the efforts of their own gun grabbers

Well, the first one under what comes to known as the Penal Laws is in 1695. Of course the English had at time banned native Irish from carrying weapons at many times previously. For example, being Irish and carrying arms during the time of Cromwell was one way to get you sent to Barbados (amongst other things).

The first known case of somebody from what becomes the UK being pissed about armed Irish would be Gerald of Wales, working for King Henry II after his little expadition, bitching in the late 1100's about how the Irish liked to carry large axes like walking sticks.

7 Will III c.5 (1695):An Act for the better securing the government, by disarming papistsSec. 1. All papists within this kingdom of Ireland shall before the 1st day of March, 1696, deliver up to some justice of the peace or corporation officer where such papist shall dwell, all their arms and ammunition, notwithstanding any licence for keeping the same heretofore granted. Justices of the peace, mayors, sheriffs, and chief officers of cities and towns and persons under their warrants, may search and seize all arms and ammunition of papists, or in the hands of any persons in trust for them, wherever they shall suspect they may be concealed. And such arms shall be preserved for the use of his Majesty.

3.1513 Geo II c.6 (1739):An Act to explain, amend , and make more effectual an Act ... disarming Papists.Sec. 13 Papists are also forbidden to keep or sell war-like stores, sword blades, barrels, locks, or stocks of guns, on penalty of 20 pounds and imprisonment for one year and until he or she shall have paid the forfeiture; the money so recovered shall go to the person who shall sue for the same.

And yeah, I know about the laws in Northern Ireland. Perfect example of why registration is bad. If you were from, oh, certain parts of Derry you'd have no chance of getting a firearm. However IIRC, a UDA major managed to get two light machine guns registered for controlling the beaver population on his estate. The registration scheme there just goes to show how it can be manipulated to make sure certain people are legally allowed to be armed, and certain aren't.

We wouldn't rant ifa)they didn't write themb)Liberals didn't then point at articles like this for their arguments

We deal with our gun grabbers quite well here, thank you. The VCDL is doing a much better job than any European group is. I guess our main problem with articles like this would be "if you don't like it, GO HOME." Most people in this country left Europe because, well, it sucked. If you're going to come here, well, please don't infect us with your bullshit.

And vito, if you're trying to draw me into some English vs Irish argument here (which is what it looks like. "Oh, England had laws but so did the South!"), ain't gonna happen. My family is from Ireland, we still have songs, dances, traditions, etc. that carried over. But you'll notice that us Americans haven't exactly moved back. The Irish, bless 'em, are still Europeans in general.

Originally posted by Tomislave]

You're aware the Jews fought a small terrorist action against the British mandate area in Palestine, and is part of the reason the whole thing got handed to the UN? I won't comment on the US part because you should know that already.

Snipers don't defeat a modern army and didn't prevent Nelson winning at Trafalgar.

Kicked your limey ass out of most of Ireland didn't it? (and lightly armed guys brought you to the bargaining table in the rest.)

Actually no it didn't, bombs and a lack of political will did that....

We say the same thing about Vietnam. Nonetheless, "a well organized militia" (being necesary for a free state...) defeated a superpower.

Arctually, the US Military comprehensively defeated 'a well organized militia' in Vietnam during Tet.

ANdy

I read somewhere that Vietnam is a Communist country. Maybe that was Cuba. I can't remember.

It is a communist country, but his statement is correct. The Viet cong were defeated militarily at Tet, but it again goes back to the 'losing of political will' to win the war.

In a way, both he and spade are correct: Sniper / terrorist attacks CAN change the outcome of a war - not really on the basis of military tactics, but by using the technique of destroying support for the war back home.

That's what the viet cong relied on, and that's what the terrorists in iraq are trying to duplicate.

Snipers don't defeat a modern army and didn't prevent Nelson winning at Trafalgar.

Kicked your limey ass out of most of Ireland didn't it? (and lightly armed guys brought you to the bargaining table in the rest.)

Actually no it didn't, bombs and a lack of political will did that....

We say the same thing about Vietnam. Nonetheless, "a well organized militia" (being necesary for a free state...) defeated a superpower.

Arctually, the US Military comprehensively defeated 'a well organized militia' in Vietnam during Tet.

ANdy

I read somewhere that Vietnam is a Communist country. Maybe that was Cuba. I can't remember.

It is a communist country, but his statement is correct. The Viet cong were defeated militarily at Tet, but it again goes back to the 'losing of political will' to win the war.

In a way, both he and spade are correct: Sniper / terrorist attacks CAN change the outcome of a war - not really on the basis of military tactics, but by using the technique of destroying support for the war back home.

That's what the viet cong relied on, and that's what the terrorists in iraq are trying to duplicate.

So what you are saying is that a well regulated militia defeated a superpower? Snipers? Booby traps? Mortars and rockets? I call B.S. Can't be.

And yeah, I know about the laws in Northern Ireland. Perfect example of why registration is bad. If you were from, oh, certain parts of Derry you'd have no chance of getting a firearm. However IIRC, a UDA major managed to get two light machine guns registered for controlling the beaver population on his estate. The registration scheme there just goes to show how it can be manipulated to make sure certain people are legally allowed to be armed, and certain aren't.

Yet again, you trot out ancient history and take it out of context. Actually the prohibition on catholics bearing arms extended throught Britain and fell into disuse just as quickly. 'Technically', as I'm a catholic I still can't own guns under that law.

Gerry Adams and Martin Magennis both have PDW(CCW) permits and carry Browning Hi-Powers.

And as for that UDR Major... it seems your not as clued up on the rules in NI as you think you may be.

Actual Factual: ANY member of the Armed Forces, Police, Judges, senior .Gov employees, Ministry of Defence Emloyees, (both serving and retired as well as anyone in that category who visits NI for family reasons), high profile businessmen, civilians working on government contracts, Firearms dealers, Banks managers or anyone with access to large sums of money gets a PDW permit be they Protestant, Catholic or Church of the Great Space Monkey in the Sky.

Normally a PDW permit is for a handgun, but if you are considered to be at 'exceptional risk' of attack, such as Senior Police Officers, Judges, Military Officers or Firearms Dealers the permit will allow the possession full auto weapons for 'Self Defence'. The most popular choice being naturally the HKMP5K.

ANdy (Catholic, Been there, done that, didn't have to 'read about it')

And yeah, I know about the laws in Northern Ireland. Perfect example of why registration is bad. If you were from, oh, certain parts of Derry you'd have no chance of getting a firearm. However IIRC, a UDA major managed to get two light machine guns registered for controlling the beaver population on his estate. The registration scheme there just goes to show how it can be manipulated to make sure certain people are legally allowed to be armed, and certain aren't.

Yet again, you trot out ancient history and take it out of context. Actually the prohibition on catholics bearing arms extended throught Britain and fell into disuse just as quickly. 'Technically', as I'm a catholic I still can't own guns under that law.

Gerry Adams and Martin Magennis both have PDW(CCW) permits and carry Browning Hi-Powers.

And as for that UDR Major... it seems your not as clued up on the rules in NI as you think you may be.

Actual Factual: ANY member of the Armed Forces, Police, Judges, senior .Gov employees, Ministry of Defence Emloyees, (both serving and retired as well as anyone in that category who visits NI for family reasons), high profile businessmen, civilians working on government contracts, Firearms dealers, Banks managers or anyone with access to large sums of money gets a PDW permit be they Protestant, Catholic or Church of the Great Space Monkey in the Sky.

Normally a PDW permit is for a handgun, but if you are considered to be at 'exceptional risk' of attack, such as Senior Police Officers, Judges, Military Officers or Firearms Dealers the permit will allow the possession full auto weapons for 'Self Defence'. The most popular choice being naturally the HKMP5K.

ANdy (Catholic, Been there, done that, didn't have to 'read about it')

Their are antiquated laws still on the books in most states that cannot be enforced....such as sodomy laws, can't take a bath on Sunday, that sort of crap...

We live in the heart of American gun country. A local farmhouse I have visited near here has a gun rack that would not disgrace a decent infantry battalion's guard room.Aye....But what is thier ARFCOM screen name?

In Houston British expatriates still speak of the drunken Scotsman coming back late one night over ten years ago in one of the smarter parts of town. When he knocked on some stranger's door at 3am, the homeowner shot and killed him believing his life to be in danger. The homeowner was within his legal rights and thus was not prosecuted.Said Scottsman should've been able to hold his booze. This is Texas, it's expected you can drink and not wind up hammering on somone elses door at night.

Gun ownership is possibly the issue that most perplexes foreigners about the United States. Even many of us who live here find it hard to fathom the almost fanatical obsession shown by some gun owners and their contempt for gun control.I have found this to be true.....However, I wouldn't celebrate my ignorance as the author does.

The gun lobby is well organized. The National Rifle Association (NRA), with no more than four million members in a nation of around 275 million, and theoretically a sporting club for gun enthusiasts, is immensely political and wields extensive influence.Also mostly true.

A visit to the NRA web site is instructive, if one wants to understand the so-called "cultural wars" between the liberals and the conservatives in this country. The web site contains in essence three principal messages:

• The Second Amendment to the US Constitution unequivocally permits American citizens to bear arms;

• Attempts to limit gun ownership are a socialist, if not communist, assault on American freedoms;

• Citizens are safer in a country without gun control, since they can defend themselves against armed criminals.Also true.

Thus it is clear that the NRA aligns itself with the social conservatives who view with alarm what they believe to be a liberal attempt to tear America away from its traditions.Also true

They believe in a literal reading of the American Constitution, they feel that the judiciary has become too liberal and they tend to regard the outside world, especially the United Nations Organisation, with a high degree of hostility.No fucking shit? The hell you say!

Be that as it may, the NRA wants to dispel the notion that the typical gun owner is a paranoid working-class white man of the kind depicted by Tennessee Williams and Arthur Miller. However, I have to say that all the hard-line gun owners I have personally encountered in my 19 years here did in fact match the stereotype and I found them to be quite impervious to any kind of rational argument.The day a gun-fearing liberal fucktard gives me a "rational" arguement, I promise I will listen.

There are angry web sites on the Internet with headlines like "Gun Control - Hypocrisy or Stupidity?" and which talk of a "war" against gun control advocates. The argument then shifts to the rather more sophisticated political point that a well-armed citizenry is a final bulwark against military dictatorship or invasion. This is illustrated by the thought that if more Europeans had had firearms in the 1930s, the Nazis would have been stopped in their tracks.Yup...This is true.

Unfortunately, the argument underestimates Nazi ruthlessness, and it is hard to imagine an armed citizenry in, for instance, Holland, Poland or the Ukraine, repulsing the Wehrmacht, backed up as it was by the SS and the Luftwaffe. Snipers don't defeat a modern army and didn't prevent Nelson winning at Trafalgar.Oh my goodness...We aren't talking about 1939-era Blitzkrieging...For fucks sake....Though the Poles in Warsaw managed a good struggle. They may've died on thier feet, but they didn't live on thier knees.

Not too many politicians are prepared to stand up to the NRA though and only the other day the Congress approved by a vote of 283-144 a law limiting gun manufacturers' legal liability.Because that's the right thing to do.

Portrayed as a measure to limit frivolous lawsuits against big business, this bill does on the face of it appear to give the gun manufacturers more legal protection than many other groups.And they need it.

Last year when the ten-year ban on the sale of assault rifles was quietly allowed to expire, you could hear the gun manufacturers licking their lips.Well, a market opened back up. What did you expect?

It is unlikely though that there will be any major changes here soon, since although many Americans do not themselves own weapons and do not subscribe to the NRA's beliefs, enough people are in some way convinced that owning guns is the "American way".It's a right. Sorry that you don't understand that.

Indeed the argument that citizens are safer in a country where there are more guns rather flies in the face of these numbers. Yet the idea of meeting force with force, as in a new Florida law, does have some theoretical merit.I for one am disturbed to read reports of elderly homeowners in England being prosecuted for defending their property and themselves against intruders or teenage vandals.Cultural differences I suppose. The author is "disturbed". I'm downright sickened.

There must be a middle ground between craven political correctness and a gun in every cupboard.

There is. You have a choice whether to own a gun or not.

If I have to shoot a ninja in the head at 600 yards, I guess I'm screwed. -AimlessHang in there Patty.

Originally Posted By Miracle_Pants:I always find it funny that no matter how hard they try and despite the fact we speak the same language; most Brits will never understand our country.

Our cousins the Brits (God Bless them) have been a "subject" people since long before the birth of Christ. We owe much of what is "good" in our own Society to our cultural "roots" in England. We Americans came here to get away from those portions and practices of "the old country" which we did not like. Our Constitution reflects very clearly, the common practices which we do not ever want to take root in America that are still commonplace in England. As for a Brit speaking out on "Gun Control" or the lack thereof in the USA................fuckem. The Brits are not even allowed to have knives or anything pointed or sharp............for their own good. Many English still apparently resent the fact that they need us MUCH more than we need them. Hell, couple more years all the Pakis that are running things there will declare sharia law the "norm", establish the "Caliphate of Britain" and none of this will be anything but moot.

"If the enemy opens the door,you must race in."-Sun Tzu.

The AK47 Rifle with over 100 million being built,to date,is the most succesful infantry arm yet known to man.

Originally Posted By happycynic:There are so many little gems in that statement, but this is my favorite.

They believe in a literal reading of the American Constitution. . . .

Its a f*cking legal document, not poetry. Of course you read it literally. Maybe if European schools taught something besides multi-cultural butt-licking you Eurotrash retards would know things like this. If you didn't have a history ciriculum centered around "101 naughty things white people and christians did" you'd understand that in Britain the militia - being comprised of the whole body of citizenry armed for war - dates back at least to Alfred the Great. That's right, 800 f*cking A.D. But we're the odd ones for maintaining a 1200 year tradition.

Liberals FROM America don't believe in a literal reading of the Constitution either.

Like I said, they are revisionists through and through, and seek to redefine the key factors that make America possible in the first place. When they fully succeed, America will be dead.

And at last the communist ideals put forward at the beginning of the 20th century by the AMERICAN COMMUNISTS will be the law of the land.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.

Originally Posted By dinkydow:Originally Posted By Miracle_Pants: The Brits are not even allowed to have knives or anything pointed or sharp............for their own good.

Wrong...

Well, you're not allowed to carry ANYTHING with you, on your person, intended to be a weapon for self defense. Even if it's a newspaper rolled up with the intent to use it as a weapon, that could technically be classified as an offensive weapon. Of coursde Brits are allowed to HAVE almost any kind of knive or object with a point, it's all about context, where and when you have it with you, what your intention is, and what your reason for having said object is.

Knives, or anything with a sharp point, carried on your person with the purpose of being used in a self-defense role will most likely get you a criminal record here...

Originally Posted By dinkydow:Originally Posted By Miracle_Pants: The Brits are not even allowed to have knives or anything pointed or sharp............for their own good.

Wrong...

Well, you're not allowed to carry ANYTHING with you, on your person, intended to be a weapon for self defense. Even if it's a newspaper rolled up with the intent to use it as a weapon, that could technically be classified as an offensive weapon. Of coursde Brits are allowed to HAVE almost any kind of knive or object with a point, it's all about context, where and when you have it with you, what your intention is, and what your reason for having said object is.

Knives, or anything with a sharp point, carried on your person with the purpose of being used in a self-defense role will most likely get you a criminal record here...

I carry a knife on me when I'm out, I take it through a Police Security check 4 times a day into a secure .Gov establishment, no problems, no issues, they know why I carry it and they really don't care...

It's funny how the author holds Europe on a higher plane of sensibility. The British are the enlightened ones, while us 'Yanks' are heathens.

And perhaps the author missed this, and correct me if I am wrong, but the crime rate per capita in the UK is getting to be greater than it is here. Scotland is identified as the most violent first world nation, to the point that kitchen knives were going to be regulated. The average crime rate in the UK has risen 200% since the firearms bans were established in the 70's. One London 'Bobby' said the criminals have the guns while everyone else is at their mercy (including unarmed police), the same scenario we and the 'radical' NRA are trying to prevent here in the great USA. This country has been founded on the belief that the citizenry is the best defense.

I haven't been there, but these statistics were written by people who have been. This guy has no idea of those facts? Maybe he needs to go back and re-educate himself.

I'd like to know why the author left the UK in the first place, was it for better opportunities here, or to escape the crime rates/restrictions there? I know several former Brits who now have weapons collections that make me, a lifelong American, jealous. There is also someone from my other forum who returned to the USA from the UK after many long years, and reveled in the freedom.

Snipers don't defeat a modern army and didn't prevent Nelson winning at Trafalgar.

Kicked your limey ass out of most of Ireland didn't it? (and lightly armed guys brought you to the bargaining table in the rest.)

Actually no it didn't, bombs and a lack of political will did that....

We say the same thing about Vietnam. Nonetheless, "a well organized militia" (being necesary for a free state...) defeated a superpower.

Arctually, the US Military comprehensively defeated 'a well organized militia' in Vietnam during Tet.

ANdy

This is a straw man that is frequently trotted out.Yes, it's true that a disorganized band of "fringe elements" wouldn't stand a chance against the U.S. military in a stand up fight. Patriots could (and probably would) get their heads handed to them. This isn't the point.The point of the armed citizen is to up the cost of violence to a level where no one can be completely sure exactly what will happen. This is what gives tyrants pause; the uncertainty that comes as a natural and unavoidable product of armed, violent struggle. Once a fight starts, all bets are off. If things last long enough, anything might happen. This is the strength of an armed population.Once a population is disarmed then it's a foregone conclusion what will have to happen next. This is why tyrants always disarm their people. Tyrants want certainty. And it is the simple existance of UNCERTAINTY which very frequently will keep them in some kind of check.

Sounds like a typical fucking Euro fag, pissing his pants at the thought of being able to defend himself.

Fuck him, and all those like him. As many have said, if he doesn't like it here, go the fuck home.

Or if he's lucky, maybe some homie will beat him with a bat, then he could opine about how he wouldn't have broken ribs, a fractured skull, or have to piss blood for a month if he only had some means to defend himself.

Snipers don't defeat a modern army and didn't prevent Nelson winning at Trafalgar.

Kicked your limey ass out of most of Ireland didn't it? (and lightly armed guys brought you to the bargaining table in the rest.)

Actually no it didn't, bombs and a lack of political will did that....

We say the same thing about Vietnam. Nonetheless, "a well organized militia" (being necesary for a free state...) defeated a superpower.

Arctually, the US Military comprehensively defeated 'a well organized militia' in Vietnam during Tet.

ANdy

This is a straw man that is frequently trotted out.Yes, it's true that a disorganized band of "fringe elements" wouldn't stand a chance against the U.S. military in a stand up fight. Patriots could (and probably would) get their heads handed to them. This isn't the point.The point of the armed citizen is to up the cost of violence to a level where no one can be completely sure exactly what will happen. This is what gives tyrants pause; the uncertainty that comes as a natural and unavoidable product of armed, violent struggle. Once a fight starts, all bets are off. If things last long enough, anything might happen. This is the strength of an armed population.Once a population is disarmed then it's a foregone conclusion what will have to happen next. This is why tyrants always disarm their people. Tyrants want certainty. And it is the simple existance of UNCERTAINTY which very frequently will keep them in some kind of check.

+1

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."